Rows: 96
Columns: 13
$ WetlandID <chr> "14634", "2108", "1296", "1284", "2079", "1302", "…
$ WetlandName <chr> "Ankasamudra Bird Conservation Reserve", "Ansupa L…
$ Area <chr> "9876.00", "231.00", "444.00", "6140.00", "2894.00…
$ DesignationDate <chr> "2023-03-10", "2021-10-12", "2020-07-21", "2002-08…
$ Latitude <chr> "15.12777", "20.460000", "30.43582649", "8.95", "2…
$ Longitude <chr> "76.23361", "85.603056", "77.66555706", "76.583333…
$ ManagementAuthority <chr> "Retired Academic - University of Agricultural Sci…
$ MajorPlants <chr> "", "Water Hyacinths", "", "", "Eichhornia crassip…
$ StateName <chr> "Karnataka", "Odisha", "Uttarakhand", "Kerala", "U…
$ districtname <chr> "Uttara Kannada", "Cuttack", "Dehradun", "Kollam",…
$ ramsar_sight <chr> "1", "1", "1", "1", "1", "1", "1", "1", "1", "1", …
$ Uniqueness <chr> "", "Ansupa Lake serves as a shelter for migratory…
$ WetlandType <lgl> NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA…Evaluating 40 Years of Wetland Conservation Policy (1981–2025)
A Spatio-Temporal EDA of India’s RAMSAR Sites
Executive Summary
India’s wetland governance from 1981 to 2025 reflects a late course‑correction after an era of under‑powered protection: the country now lists 96 Ramsar sites and aspires to meet the Kunming–Montreal GBF “30×30” target, yet this growth has not prevented critical wetlands from becoming high‑diversity, high‑threat hotspots. For much of this period, policy relied on selective designation of iconic basins without systematically tracking ecosystem diversity or accumulating pressures, so many legacy sites rest on a single Ramsar criterion even as they face escalating stress from urbanisation, land‑use change, hydrological engineering and invasive species that existing rules failed to contain. The turning point came only with the Supreme Court’s directions in M.K. Balakrishnan vs Union of India and the Wetlands Rules 2017, which forced nationwide inventory and state‑level responsibility, and with the launch of the Amrit Dharohar scheme, which seeks to mobilise finance, community stewardship and eco‑tourism around Ramsar sites. Against this backdrop of delayed but strengthening institutions, this study argues that past governance has been insufficient in design, and responds by integrating spatial growth, a Ramsar‑criteria‑based diversity score, quantified threat density from Ramsar Information Sheets, and a new Ramsar Red List of high‑diversity, high‑risk wetlands that should be treated as national environmental emergencies and prioritised for enforcement, restoration and targeted Amrit Dharohar investment.
Introduction
Historically, wetlands were often viewed as wastelands or voids in the administrative landscape. However, over the last four decades, a fundamental shift in the perception of these spaces has occurred. Wetlands are now recognized as the Kidneys of the landscape—vital hydrological vectors that regulate carbon sequestration, flood mitigation, and biodiversity. The RAMSAR Convention, signed in 1971, provided the first global framework for wetland protection. India’s accession to the convention in 1982 marked the beginning of a structured conservation timeline, transforming local water bodies into nodes of international significance.
Wetlands are no longer peripheral to India’s development agenda; they are central to its climate resilience. As of 2025, India has expanded its network to 96 RAMSAR sites (totaling over 1.5 million hectares), making it the leader in South Asia for protected wetland density. This exercise is particularly timely due to the recent announcement of Amrit Dharohar Scheme by the Government of India to promote the “wise use” of RAMSAR sites through community-led conservation and eco-tourism. Further, under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), India is committed to the “30x30” target—protecting 30% of its land and water by 2030 and this pivots wetlands as the most efficient “units” to meet these targets due to their high carbon density. Additionally, The State of World’s Wetlands and India’s own National Wetland Decadal Change Atlas highlights that while site numbers are increasing, they are under severe pressure from urban expansion.
This analysis evaluates the Spatio-Temporal Efficiency of 40 years of policy. While the number of sites has exploded recently, our research identifies anchor hubs in conservation—where 45% of the protected area is concentrated in just 3% of the sites. The rationale for this study is further bolstered by a strengthening judicial framework. Landmark rulings, such as the Supreme Court’s directions in the M.K. Balakrishnan vs. Union of India case, have mandated the mapping and protection of over 200,000 wetlands nationwide. The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, shifted the administrative authority toward States, making local-level data analysis more critical than ever.
Key Findings
Objective
The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the geospatial, temporal, ecological and institutional architecture of India’s Ramsar network from 1982 to 2025, by jointly examining site distribution, ecosystem diversity, and governance patterns. Specifically, the study aims to (i) quantify ecological diversity using Ramsar criteria, (ii) map and categorise the spectrum of anthropogenic and climatic threats reported across sites, and (iii) develop a data‑driven “Ramsar Red List” of ecologically rich wetlands facing high threat density, in order to derive evidence‑based policy levers for prioritised conservation and risk mitigation.
Data Source
The foundational data for this analysis is sourced from the Open Government Data (OGD) Platform India which has a catalog on RAMSAR Sites. This dataset provides the geometric coordinates, area in hectares, and designation dates for the wetlands, allowing for a precise spatial and temporal analysis.
Data Accessibility
The dataset for this analysis is sourced from the Open Government Data (OGD) Platform India and RSIS portal (https://rsis.ramsar.org/)
Method
Glimpse of the dataframe
The dataset has 96 rows and 13 columns.
Data Cleaning and Preparation
The dataset on RAMSAR wetlands downloaded from OGD is a json file (not structured), and all the observations are stored in character data type. This is not ideal for Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA), which requires a structured dataset. Hence, we need to clean the data by mutating the observations into appropriate data types that will make it easier to analyse. We use tidyverse() library for the said purpose.
Geographical Distribution of Wetlands in India
The above map illustrates that India’s RAMSAR sites are not uniformly distributed but are clustered. We can see a concentration of sites in the Indo-Gangetic Plain and a significant concentration along the Southern Coast (Tamil Nadu). The nodal points also indicate that the largest wetlands (by area) are mostly located in the North and East, while the South is characterized by a cluster of smaller sites.
The Ramsar Sites Criteria
The Ramsar Convention uses nine specific criteria to identify Wetlands of International Importance. A site must meet at least one of these criteria to be designated as a Ramsar Site. These criteria are divided into two main groups: those based on representative, rare, or unique wetland types (Group A), and those focusing on conserving biological diversity (Group B). Here’s a detailed breakdown of criteria for your reference.
The analysis of the distribution of these 9 criteria across Ramsar sites denotes the ecological fingerprint of India’s Ramsar network. The analysis also helps in understanding why these sites are considered to be of international importance.
The core striking feature of the analysis is the dominance of Criteria 2 (C2) as the qualifying criteria in 87/96 sites. Since C2 is associated with supporting vulnerable or endangered species, its presence in 90% of all sites implies that India uses Ramsar convention mainly to protect threatened species.
The high counts for C3 (76) and C4 (62) indicates that these sites support biological diversity by providing refuge and supports vulnerbale species at a critical stage in their life cycles. C5 (44) and C6 (40) deal with waterbird populations and almost 42–45% of India’s sites qualify under these criteria. These sites likely form part of the Central Asian Flyway acting as the primary transit points for migratory species.
Interestingly, C1 only appears in 29 sites, which indicates that India’s designation strategy is biocentric rather than geocentric. Thus,there is a significant opportunity to identify representative wetlands such as peatlands or unique ephemeral desert wetlands that might not have high species counts but are rare geological formations.
Additionally, only about 30% of sites are recognized for their role in fish spawning or indigenous stocks (C7 and C8). Given India’s massive riverine and coastal systems, this may suggest that the aquatic biodiversity is currently under-represented in the RAMSAR portfolio. Whereas, with only 1 site qualifying under C9, there is a near-total absence of sites designated specifically for mammals, reptiles, or amphibians.
Temporal Growth Analysis
Besides the spatial analysis, the other compelling story of India’s conservation policy is Time. Here, we try to analyze the chronological sequence of designations so that we can map the conservation speed of RAMSAR sites. This temporal lens reveals whether India’s RAMSAR network grew through steady, incremental additions or through sudden bursts of policy intervention.
For decades, the designation of RAMSAR sites in India followed a steady, linear growth pattern, characterized by a slow expansion of the protected network. Conversley, the recent data evinces a transition toward an exponential rise in the rate of declarations. In this light, it is crucial to evaluate how the rate of RAMSAR designations changed over the last three decades, particularly since the 2020s and to investigate if there existsan ‘Inflection Point’ where the policy shifted from passive protection to active expansion.
It is apparent from the above plot that a Policy Inflection Point occurred around 2020. While designations were sporadic from 1981 to 2010, the curve steepens sharply in the last five years with more than half (59) of India’s current RAMSAR sites designated since 2020, signaling an aggressive shift in national environmental policy and a heightened commitment to international conservation standards.
This EDA exercise and the corresponding plot implies that, before 2020 (The Legacy Era), we only had 37 RAMSAR sites. This represents nearly 40 years of gradual identification and designation since India joined the convention in 1982. However, post-2020 (The Modern Era), we can see that 59 additional sites were designated as RAMSAR sites, which forms 61% of India’s total RAMSAR sites were declared in just the last 5 years. This sudden surge indicates a shift in environmental priority, where the administrative speed of protecting wetlands has tripled compared to the previous four decades.
Ecological Diversity Score
Our exercise identifies the high performance sites of India’s Ramsar network. While many sites qualify under just one or two criteria, a few specific sites function as ecological hotspots that validate their multi-functional roles providing a wide range of ecological services.
Coastal Dominance
Sites like Gulf of Mannar, Pichavaram Mangrove, and Thane Creek qualify as Ramsar sites with at least 8/9 defining criterion. Their international significance is comprehensive, spanning from unique hydrology (C1) and endangered species (C2) to large-scale bird populations (C5/C6) and critical fish spawning (C7/C8). This positions them as Irreplaceable Hubs of India’s Ramsar network. Consequently, they are highly sensitive since they meet almost every criterion. A single threat (like an oil spill or sea-level rise) wouldn’t just affect one species, rather it would have a cascading impact across eight different ecological dimensions.
Niche Sites
Few sites like Aghanashini Estuary, Nandur Madhameshwar, and Vedanthangal score a 0 on Criterion 1 but a 1 on almost everything else. Meaning, these sites are not necessarily geologically unique or rare wetland types in their region, but they are biological hotspots. They serve as crucial refugee camps for birds and fish in critical stages of their life cycles. Therefore, governing authorities here should prioritize biological health (species counts and habitat quality) over landscape preservation.
The Trade-off
Sites like Kazhuveli and Pallikaranai qualify for almost criteria but fail Criterion 5 (the 20,000+ waterbird threshold). This makes them high-quality, low-density sites. They might support extremely rare species (C2) and critical life stages (C4), but they don’t host the mega-flocks required for C5. These sites prove that Small/Medium sites can be more diverse than massive ones. For instance, Pallikaranai, despite its urban pressures, is more ecologically diverse (meeting 7 criteria) than many larger sites that might only meet 1 or 2 criteria.
The Minimalists
While sites like Gulf of Mannar dominate by ticking most of the defining criteria, alternatively, we also have sites that represent the minimalists of our Ramsar network. Surprisingly, these are some of India’s most iconic lakes like Chilika, Keoladeo, and Wular Lake, yet they rank at the bottom of this diversity index.
To our surprise, Chilika Lake (India’s largest brackish water lagoon) and Keoladeo National Park (renowned bird sanctuary) are mapped at the bottom of this diversity index with a score of only 1 (Criterion 2). By inference, these sites are protected since they act as refuges for endangered species (C2). Despite their massive area and ecological fame, their international legal standing rests on a single, critical “Life-Support” criteria. This suggests that for legacy sites, the designation was highly focused on a specific crisis (threatened species) rather than a broad-spectrum ecological mapping.
Landscape Specialists (C1)
There are also sites like East Calcutta Wetlands, Harike Lake, Sambhar Lake, and Wular Lake qualify solely under Criterion 1 (Unique/Representative Wetland). They represent the unique features since they are the only examples of their kind in the biogeographic region. Their value is not tied to the number of birds or fish they hold, but to the fact that they are unique geological or hydrological features (e.g., Sambhar as a unique saline lake, Wular as a massive freshwater tectonic lake).
Fragile Sites
Few sites like Kanjli (C3 only) or Udaipur Jheel (C2, C3) possess a very simplistic profile. Unlike sites like Gulf of Mannar, which are defined by 8-9 criteria, these sites are linear. If the population of species (C2 or C3) they protect disappears, the justification for their Ramsar status would be compromised. Thus, they act as niche refuge sites rather than diverse ecological hubs.
State-wise Distribution of Wetlands
To understand thearchitecture of India’s RAMSAR conservation, we must look beyond numbers to examine the state-wise distribution. We need to understand here that if the distribution is concentrated, the national conservation strategy would rely on a few power clusters, whereas in a dispersed distribution, the responsibility to manage is also distributed, creating a more economic regulatory framework.
The designation of a RAMSAR site is a reflection of both ecological wealth and administrative proactivity. Mapping the site count across states would enable the identification of clustered corridors and the sparse zones of the RAMSAR network in Indian context. Therefore, we need to determine if a small number of states hold the majority of India’s RAMSAR designations, or is it evenly distributed.
The bar plot confirms a disparity in wetland distribution. Tamil Nadu leads the country with 20 sites, followed by Uttar Pradesh (10). These top two states have 31.2% of the total number of RAMSAR sites in India. Further, the share of the top 5 states in this metric is an overwhelming —50.0%. Conversely, 50.0% of states (13) have only 1or 2 sites, suggesting that conservation success is currently driven by specific state-level initiatives rather than a perfectly uniform national spread.
The Size Spectrum: Are we protecting large basins or small habitats?
As established in Fig:1, it is clear that the area represented by RAMSAR sites is not uniform throughout the country. This aligns with India’s diverse geographical terrain where different habitats are nurtured by diferent types of wetlands, but all of them are necessary to sustain their ecosystem.
For instance, larger sites like the Sundarbans (West Bengal) or Vembanad-Kol (Kerala) act as macro-anchors which are essential for regional climate regulation, carbon sequestration, and protecting inland populations from cyclonic surges. Conversly, medium sized sites such as Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan) function as nodal hubs, supporting migratory flyways. Whereas, smaller sites like the Renuka Lake (Himachal Pradesh), act as refugee/niche habitats creating unique micro-climates for endemic species that would be lost in a larger, more competitive basin.
The key question therefore, is to ask whether there is a correlation in the distribution of wetland sizes (Area), and are there mega-wetlands that skew the national average?
The bar plot shows a shift in India’s wetland protection architrcture from broad landscape protection to targeted biodiversity conservation. Most sites (38.5% of total number of Ramsar sites) fall within the 1,000 to 10,000-hectare range. However, the presence of sites on the extreme right of the plot indicates mega-wetlands that serve as critical national ecological anchors (discussed in the next section), while the smaller peaks represent specialized bird sanctuaries or niche habitats.
The “Mid-Range” Dominance (The 100–1,000 Hectare)
38.5% of all Indian RAMSAR sites fall into the 100–1,000 hectare range. This suggests that India’s conservation framework is optimized for medium-sized water bodies. These are often large enough to support significant migratory bird populations but small enough to be managed under specific state-level administrative boundaries.
The Mega-Wetlands are rare
Only 3.1% (3 sites) exceed 100,000 hectares. In a 40-year policy evaluation, we can consider them as legacy sites. For example, wetland ecosystems like the Sundarbans. Their low count isn’t a failure of policy, but rather a reflection of the geographic reality: there are very few ecosystems of this magnitude in the country. They act as the National Anchors of the network.
The Rise of Small Habitats (10–100 Hectares)
With 15.6% of sites being relatively small (< 100 ha), there is clear evidence of Targeted Biodiversity Conservation. In recent years (2020–2025), policy has shifted toward identifying “Micro-Nodes,” sites that may be small in area but are critical for migratory paths like the Central Asian Flyway. For example, Kazhuveli Bird Sanctuary in Tamilnadu.
The conservation architecture of India’s RAMSAR sites indicate a shift from broad ‘Landscape Protection’ to ‘Targeted Biodiversity Conservation.’ While the early decades focused on securing massive basins (>100k ha), the recent designations are defined by the proliferation of mid-sized (100–1,000 ha) and micro-sites (<100 ha), emphasizing a more granular and inclusive approach to wetland management.
3 vs 93: The Anchor Sites
As previously discussed, just 3 sites (3.1% of total number of sites) hold a substantial area, each exceeding 100,000 hectares. We need to examine this further to analyse how these 3 large sites differ compared to other smaller sites on the RAMSAR network.
The most crucial finding of this EDA is the extreme concentration of protected acreage in just three locations - Sunderbans Wetland, Vembanad-Kol Wetland and Chilika Lake . These 3 sites (3.1% of the total Ramsar sites) command nearly half (44.9%) of the entire national RAMSAR footprint. With 690,750 hectares concentrated in these hubs, they serve as the primary Carbon sinks and hydrological regulators for the country. This anchors them as the most crucial hubs in India’s RAMSAR sites conservation framework and hence these sites warrant special and focused attention. The remaining 93 sites represent 847,207 hectares, averaging only about 9,100 hectares per site. While these sites are individually smaller, they act as spokes of the wetland protection network since they provide vital connectivity across different climatic zones, bird flyways, and state borders.
Overall, while the Hubs provide the scale and act as national ecological anchors, the Spokes provide the resilience by ensuring that if one region faces a drought or ecological crisis, other nodes in the network can still support migratory species. This dual-track strategy of protecting massive hubs while expanding a dense network of small spokes is the highlight of India’s modern conservation framework.
Relationship between Latitude & Area of Wetlands
The objective here is to investigate if northern wetlands tend to be larger or smaller than wetlands in the peninsula and to analyse if there exists a correlation between geographical latitude and the size of designated wetlands. We can do this by comparing the area of wetlands against their coordinates. This EDA reveals a surprising inversion in India’s wetland conservation paradigm. Despite the North having a network of rivers like the Indus-Ganga floodplains, the Peninsular South actually holds the overwhelming majority of India’s protected wetland mass.
Numerical Parity
Geographically, there is almost perfect balance in terms of distribution with the North (above 23.5°N) having 46 sites and the South (below 23.5°N) having 50 sites. This points to a symmetric designation of sites across India. We can hence conclude that our “Tropic of Cancer (ToC)” line acts as an almost perfect axis of symmetry for the number of designations.
Area Asymmetry
Surprisingly though, 79.3% of total wetland area is concentrated in the South. Despite having a similar number of sites, the South holds 1,219,308 hectares, nearly 4x the total area of the North (318,648 hectares). The “Average Area” in the South (\(24,386\) ha) is significantly higher than in the North (6,927 ha), driven by Anchor Hubs like the Sundarbans and Chilika Lake.
Trend Line
As we can infer from the plot, there is a slight increase in size as we go North. However, the high variance (the distance of dots from the line) is the real story. This outlier effect can be noticed from the massive nodes just to the left of the Tropic of Cancer. This exerts more gravitational pull on the dataset than 20 smaller sites in the far North combined.
Median vs. Mean
The fact that the Medians are so close (624 ha for north and 761 ha for south) while the Means are so far apart (6,927 vs. 24,386) proves that Indian wetland conservation architecture is anchored in a few massive sites.
Overall, while Northern India provides a consistent network of 46 sites, Peninsular India provides a relatively similar network of 50 sites but represents nearly 80% of the total protected area. Our EDA analysis reveals that conservation below ToC is defined by massive basins, while above ToC, it is defined by niche clusters.
Natural vs. Human-Made Wetlands: Is there an Anthropogenic shift?
Recent additions made in 2025, like Siliserh Lake (Rajasthan) and Kopra Reservoir (Chhattisgarh), are artificial ecosystems. This analysis reveals if India is increasingly relying on man-made reservoirs for international conservation status and determines if India’s conservation strategy is shifting toward protecting infrastructure-based ecosystems. Our goal here is to investigate what percentage of India’s RAMSAR network is comprised of human-made “Artificial” wetlands, and to evaluate how their average size compare to natural basins.
The analysis makes it clear that India’s Ramsar portfolio is overwhelmingly focused on Natural/Semi-Natural systems with a commanding majority of 83 sites, while Human-made/Managed sites (tanks and reservoirs) represent just 13 sites. We can therefore say that India’s conservation architecture is built on an organic foundation with human-made sites representing a supplementary layer of conservation, rather than being the primary intervention strategy.
Moreover, one of the critical discoveries stemming from this analysis is that the median area of a typical human-made RAMSAR site (1,675 ha) is over three times larger than a natural one (526 ha). Nonetheless, the natural sites still represent 88.6% of the total area compared to just 11.4% shared by human-made sites.
It should also be noted here that the human-made reservoirs and barrages are now statistically comparable in importance to natural lakes, since India is leveraging its irrigation infrastructure to provide internationally recognized habitats for migratory species. Examples include Pong dam in Himachal Pradesh and Beas Conservation Reserve in Punjab.
Semantic Analysis of Uniqueness
A good approach to understand the uniqueness of India’s RAMSAR sites is by performing Natural Language Processing (NLP) on the qualitative data (categorical data) contained in our dataset. This can be done by extracting and identifying specific keywords from the observation “Uniqueness” of the dataset that justify why these 96 sites were recognized by awarding them with international status.
The key question here is to evaluate the top three Ecological Drivers (e.g., Birds, Flood Control) that qualify an Indian site for RAMSAR status. This can be done by extracting the keywords of Uniqueness Observation to see what makes a wetland internationally significant in the Indian context.
The high frequency of terms like “bird/birds/waterbirds” (appears 14 times), “sanctuary/reservoir” (appears 9 times), and “migratory” (appears 4 times), confirms that India’s RAMSAR sites are primarily designated because of their role as bird sanctuaries in the Central Asian Flyway. This also signals that a large portion of India’s protected wetlands are irrigation reservoirs and designated sanctuaries, integrated into international conservation frameworks.
Further, the appearance of words like “freshwater” (5 times) and “endangered” (3 times) indicates that the often used logic behind India’s conservation framework of wetlands is threat-response, where the attention is focused on inland freshwater ecosystems (not just coastal) and their role in preventing the extinction of specific species.
The Seasonality of Global Recognition
As previously discussed, at the outset, there were only 37 sites before 2020. This changed drastically in the last five years with the announcement of 59 additional sites, which often involved bundled designations in one go. This makes one curious to inquire if there is a “policy window” where sites are more likely to be designated around specific international events (e.g., World Wetlands Day or Independence Day). The answer to this would show if political timelines influence environmental milestones. We can understand this by employing a radial plot to see if designations cluster around specific months (Policy Momentum).
As can be inferred from the radial plot, the announcement of RAMSAR sites are not distributed evenly throughout the year. Rather, we can observe a nesting in a few months, like Apr, when 17 sites were declared, and in Jan when 14, and in Aug, when again, 14 sites were declared as RAMSAR sites. This aligns with prominent annual events such as World Wetlands Day on February 2nd or Independence day on August 15th. For instance, on India’s 75th Independence Day, Environment Minister Sri Bhupendra Yadav declared on social media pllatform ‘X’ that he was, “Elated to inform that 11 more Indian wetlands have got RAMSAR recognition. This takes our tally to 75 sites.” [1] This shows that there is a window of announcement, often tied to global environmental milestones and diplomatic postures.
Fragmented vs. Clustered Landscapes
Considering the spatial distribution of RAMSAR sites, one might argue that there is no clear pattern as to whether they are getting clustered or isolated. Hence, the question we pose here is to investigate the pattern of spatial distribution of RAMSAR sites to identify Hotspots (like the Tamil Nadu belt) versus Isolated sites (like Pala Wetland in Mizoram). This can be done by calculating how far each site is from its closest neighbor. The findings are interesting.
Sites like Kolleru Lake (423 km away from the nearest wetland), Deepor Beel (268 km), and Loktak Lake (268 km) are what experts might call “Ecological Islands.” These sites are geographically lonely considering the nearest RAMSAR site. Hence, from a policy perspective, this necessitates localized, high-intensity management because they cannot rely on neighboring wetlands.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have sites like Chitrangudi and Kanjirankulam (2.07 km) or Nagi and Nakti (5.34 km). These are not just individual sites; they are clustered complexes. Geometrically, these nodes are so close they likely share the same migratory bird populations and water tables. This suggests that recent policy (post-2020) has shifted toward protecting “clusters,” effectively creating larger safety zones rather than just isolated spots.
Governing Diversity
The dataset names various authorities, from “Retired Academics” to “Forest Departments.” One critical question to ask is whether there is a correlation between the type of wetland, its area and management authority. The answer to this question would reveal if institutional authorities manage mega-wetlands and whether local/academic bodies manage smaller niche sanctuaries.
The analysis indicates the general trend mapping key governing institutions managing Ramsar sites based on their type and their area.
Natural Sites
For instance, With 54 sites and managing 60% of the total area (923,172 ha), State Forest Departments emerge as the dominant governing authority for natural RAMSAR sites. On the other hand, the small median of 488 ha for this group shows that the State Departments manages a large tail of small Natural RAMSAR sites, anchored by a few larger sites.
Unlike the state departments, Other/Local Authorities manage 28.6% of the total Natural RAMSAR wetland area (439,830 ha), managing 29 sites. This implies that while the State handles the extremes (very small and very large sites), Local Authorities manage the mid sized natural sites. Thus, they act as connecting conduits between large anchor hubs and smaller spokes.
Artificial Sites
On similar lines as Natural sites, with 10 sites and 9.4% of the total area, “State Department” is the dominant regulatory authority for Human-Made sites. Furthermore, Local Authority manages only 2 Human-Made sites representing just 1.3% of the total area. Alternatively, we also have a new category of governing authority - Academic/Expert - managing a lone site in Ankasamudra Bird Conservation Reserve in Karnataka.
Threats faced by Wetlands
Approximately 4.86% of India’s land area is covered by wetlands – ecosystems that are often referred to as the “Earth’s kidneys” because of their critical role in maintaining ecological balance. Yet, many of India’s wetlands are under threat due to climate change, urbanization, pollution, and unscientific land-use practices. Urban wetlands are especially vulnerable due to rapid urbanization and unchecked discharge from nearby industries or untreated sewage.
Anthropogenic Pressure
The threat analysis of these wetlands indicates that human expansion and resource extraction form the primary stressors. Unlike ecological diversity, which showed a structural shift in 2020, the threat data shows a persistent, multi-dimension assault on wetland health.
Dominance of Spatial Encroachment (Threats 1, 2, 9)
The most significant pressure comes from the encroachment of wetlands by anthropogenic factors. Non-agricultural settlements (4.93%) and Agriculture (4.64%) represent the two highest frequency threats. This suggests that wetlands are being squeezed from both sides - urban sprawl and the need for food production. If we combine “Housing and urban areas” with “Human settlements,” the urban footprint becomes the undisputed primary factor responsible for degradation.
Biological Integrity Decay (Threats 4, 8)
Invasive species appear twice in the top 10 list (at 4.17% and 3.65%), indicating a high degree of biological contamination. The presence of invasive species and problematic genes implies that the ecological complexity is being threatened by non-native species.
Hydrological Paradox (Threat 5)
Though water regulation (4.00%) ranks in the middle of the matrix, it underscores a critical contradiction - while these are Ramsar sites (protected for their water), the very “regulation” of that water (dams, diversions, or pumping) is one of their top 5 threats.
Point sources of concern
Analysis of factors at the tail-end of threats points to the less visible concerns of wetland degradation. Even though infrastructure and sensory pollution (light/sound) currently occupy a minimal footprint in the data, they may represent the next big challenge of urban wetland management. As our wetlands become increasingly encroached by urban expansion, these low-level threats may transition into primary stressors in the near-future.
Proactive mitigation of light and sound pollution should be empasized in the management plans of urban Ramsar sites before they trigger a decline in ecological diversity.
Red List of Wetlands
The aim here is to identify the list of wetlands with specific environmental stressors. By analyzing threat density - the total number of unique threats reported per site, we can pinpoint wetlands reaching a critical saturation point, where multiple pressures overlap to create a compound crisis.
Actionable Policy Recommendations
Conclusion
Overall, India’s Ramsar policy has moved from slow, emblematic protection to rapid, criteria‑rich expansion, but the first four decades largely failed to anticipate how urbanisation, infrastructure and climate pressures would converge on the wetlands of highest ecological value. Therefore, we argue for a decisive shift from nominal designation to risk‑aware governance: rebalancing Ramsar criteria toward under‑represented ecosystem functions, de‑risking mega‑anchors, protecting clusters and corridors, and using the Ramsar Red List as a priority list for funding, enforcement, and Amrit Dharohar interventions so that India’s expanded network translates into durable ecological security rather than a larger, more fragile inventory on paper.
NOTE: This framework is designed as a data‑driven tool that can be updated each year as new Ramsar sites are designated, criteria are revised, or additional threats are reported, ensuring that India’s wetland policy remains responsive to a changing ecological and institutional landscape.